Orissa

Cuttak

CC/63/2021

Sanat Kumar Muduli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narayani Motors Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S N B Ray

09 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.63/2021

 

          Sarat Kumar Muduli,

          S/O: DusasanaMuduli of

          Vill:KapaleswarNuasahi,

          P.O:Kapaleswar,P.S:Choudwar,

           Dist:Cuttack.                                                                         ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.       Narayani Motors Private Ltd.,

Maruti Suzuki Authorised Dealer,

Branch Office at:Plot No.187,Nirgundi,

                   PS-Tangi,Dist-Cuttack,754025

 

2.      Narayani Motors Private Ltd.,

Maruti Suzuki Authorised Dealer

56 &57,Rasulgarh,Bhubaneswar-751010,

                  Dist-Khurda

 

3.     Narayani Motors Private Ltd.,

Workshiopat:Jharpada,Plot No.217,

Cuttack Road,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda,

              Pin-751006.

 

4.     Manager,Indusind bank,

                      Plot No.1320,IInd Floor,

                      UmangaPlaza,Bajrakabati Road,

                      Dist: Cuttack-753001.                                                        ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    26.03.2021

Date of Order:  09.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. S.N.B.Roy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3:       Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.4:                    Mr. P.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                     

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that having obtained finance from the O.Pshe had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Super Carry Petrol Car bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AX-3195.  He had taken possession of the vehicle on 27.9.2020 but astonishingly after 52 days of its running the vehicle developed certain defects in it’s clutch plate for which on 30.10.2020 he had to take the vehicle to the workshop of O.P no.3 for its repairing.  After being repaired, the vehicle was handed over to him on 4.11.20 but again the vehicle showed defect in the pump set for which he had to take it again to the workshop of O.P. no.3 on 27.11.20.  A week thereafter he received his vehicle from O.P no.3 but ten days thereafter again there was defect in the clutch plate and on 10.12.2020 the vehicle was again taken to the workshop for repairing.  O.P no.3 after rectifying the effect had delivered his vehicle which according to him, had manufacturing defect.  His vehicle is now lying with the O.Ps since 27.1.2021.  Since because his vehicle was not plying he could not repay the financed amount for which he has filed this case seeking direction to the O.Ps to replace the defective vehicle by providing him a new one or in the alternative to pay him the down payment amount of Rs.83,000/- alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum with effect from 11.9.20 to the tune of Rs.5395/- together with E.M.I of Rs.10,752/- as paid by him on 15.10.2020.  The complainant has also claimed from the O.Ps a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the loss of his business, further a sum of 9952/- towards the expenses incurred by him in toeing his vehicle to the workshop, further a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and also a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

     The complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to prove his case.

2.  All the O.Ps have contested this case out of whom O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 have jointly filed their written version whereas O.P no.4 has filed his separate written version.

     According to the written version of O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  It is also liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The claim of manufacturing defect as made by the complainant is not amply proved.  According to the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3, the claims made by the complainant cannot be out of the scope of the warranty terms.  These O.Ps have urged that there was no warranty on the clutch plate of the said vehicle, the demand as made by the complainant to replace the vehicle is not within the purview of the warranty.  They have admitted about the purchase of the Maruti Suzuki Super Carry Petrol Car by the complainant from O.P No.1 after obtaining finance from O.P no.4.  Since there was no warranty but the clutch plate was repaired whenever the vehicle was brought to the workshop and accordingly the cost was charged.  Thus, these O.Ps through their written version have urged to dismiss the complaint petition as filed, it being not maintainable.

     The O.P no.4 through his written version has also stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed, bad for the principles of estoppels, waiver of acquiescence.  He admits to have financed the complainant for his vehicle but alleges that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands, rather had suppressed the material facts with malicious motive and is a wilful defaulter in repaying the loan as obtained by him.  The complainant had repaid the first E.M.I only on 30.10.2020 to the tune of Rs.10,760/- by cash.  Accordingly, O.P no.4 has also alleged through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

     O.P no.4 has filed certain copies of documents in order to prove his stand.

3.  Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 & 4, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

 

Issue No.ii.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

     The allegation as made by the complainant is that the vehicle purchased by him from O.P no.1 had manufacturing defect for which he has urged to direct O.P no.1 for replacing the said defective vehicle by providing him a new one in lieu of it.  But law is well settled and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Superior Courts, that in order to prove manufacturing defect, the complainant should have examined his vehicle through any person who is an authorised expert and who would have certified that the vehicle indeed had manufacturing defect.  The complainant through his complaint petition hasurged that on several occasions due to defect in the clutch plate of the said vehicle mostly and also due to defect in the pump-set of the vehicle he had to carry the said vehicle to the workshop of O.P no.3 for it’s repair.  He has annexed copies of several money receipts/cash memos/bills in order to prove his stand.  The O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 through their written version have stated that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty of the said vehicle, the clutch plate is not covered.  That means, the complainant had to bear the expenses of its repair or replacement.  The complainant has not produced any document in order to apprise this Commission that if infact the clutch plate of the vehicle was under the coverage of warranty.  Thus in absence of the same, this Commission fails to arrive at any conclusion that if the O.Ps were deficient in  their service.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 9^th  day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.   

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                            President

 

 

                                                                                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                              Member